I usually get the feeling people complain about other things about capitalism than I see as a problem. It appears the best way we have at the moment to run an economy. I also assume anything better will replace capitalism.
Any faults found in any economic system should be improved upon by, for example, a political system. There are many arguments that I agree with but don't see why it's specifically the fault of capitalism.
Next to that I often get mixed feelings about these discussions, not particularly this one btw. For example: people complaining about capitalism using all the results of big businesses (on an iPhone using Youtube streaming while in a Tesla), while also living in a capitalist country. You can always complain, but I does look like complaining without understanding the impact of their remarks. For example: should be just abandon the current economic system and replace it with something else (for example communism) and everything is fine? Because I doubt that people in positions of power will be less corrupt or our environment will be better off. I hope most people agree we need a healthy planet and people are free and cared for. Wasteful behavior like current rates of consumption don't appear to fit into that picture. But a lot of the problems I see can also be handled by a free-market economy. The person that finds out a cheap, easy and good way to remove CO2 from air will be a rich person for example. And if that person doesn't care about wealth, the money can be invested in other good causes like having exceedingly good wages for the employees of the company and top tier educational facilities. Governments can do something similar by using taxes, but that's not an economic system. So a good mix of a healthy economy and a proper government could make it work, which could be a mix of capitalist and socialist systems.
In capitalism only money can give advantage.
Capitalism lets money flow to value; it doesn't determine what has value itself. Apparently people like iPhones even though they are usually more expensive compared to other phones. People think the device has value and they provide the money to Apple, Apple doesn't force you to buy their product. If any competing product delivers similar value for a better price that company would get all the money.
If you have a product that you think everyone should buy but people don't agree it has value, you'll not get any money. The only way to sell such a product is to force people to buy it.
If Apple is a bad company, and everyone agrees this is true, they can stop buying products from Apple. As companies like making money, they'll adjust or stop existing (unless the government steps in and bails them out).
So who determines what has value: people. And a government can steer the value part, by adding a pollution tax for example. Any polluting product will be more expensive and the market will do the rest.
If a government doesn't steer it's economy the cheapest products will probably sell best, which could be wasteful and poorly paid labor products. Large companies will always try to make more money and when too big it could lead to monopolistic positions.
And even when you look closely at innovation coming from the private sector (for example the "personal computer") you realize that most of the time the people responsible for it didn't do it for money but out of passion, and those who did it for greed often stifled innovation in the pursuit of profit (aggressive patents, suing hobbyists, walled-gardens, etc.).
Capitalism doesn't mean you need to be greedy. If you have a passion for you work people can support you by using your products and services. Capitalism doesn't determine what you need to do.
If a person wants to build a sustainable enterprise they'll aim to provide a steady value to their customers base. If you mix a sustainable enterprise with passionate people you might have the perfect mix.
I do see that there can be a clash between those two goals. If you give away all value directly, you'll not be sustainable as a company (if that's your goal). That's usually where competition comes in, they force you to provide the most value possible and be sustainable at the same time. And again, governments can intervene by adding incentives to make it easier for companies that align with their ambitions to be sustainable.
Governments could also run those companies directly, but there is no real incentive to do it efficiently.
Btw. patent trolls, walled-gardens, suing hobbyist, those practices should be made illegal in my opinion.
So capitalism changed the unfair natural condition to a unfair capitalistic condition. That's not equality, that's preserving inequality or rather ensuring the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Free guns for everyone, I think they US might like that proposal
It feels like you have the position inequality shouldn't exist. Equality is impossible, but you should try to achieve it.
You could make the inequality gap much smaller, so if you serve your community you're rewarded and if not you still have the basics. It's not equal, but more equal.
The problem I see in the US it the gigantic gap between the rich and poor. If you are homeless but you don't want to be (I've seen many that want to be homeless for some reason, maybe it's just the routine instead of actually wanting to be homeless though), you should have the opportunity and get the support to improve your situation. Also the term 'wealth' can be sometimes be used disingenuous: as you can own something of value which is expressed in money, but you don't own that money until you actually get rid of it. Governments sometimes tax this potential money, like the value of your house increased (but you didn't sell your house).
@TeDaDeS You just playing devil's advocate here?
I wonder what triggered that question
